From: Robert Jensen [mailto:rvmijensen@] Sent: Wednesday ... · Thank you for sending me a copy describing the Community Input Meeting scheduled for Wednesday. ... 15 michaelwreid@

Attachments: Shoreline Considerations Applicable to Capitol Lake Dam.docx

From: Robert Jensen [mailto:rvmijensen@]Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2016 12:34 PMTo: Martin, Carrie R. (DES) Subject: FW: Purpose and Need Statement

Dear Carrie,

Please confirm you received the below email message and the twoattachments.

Respectfully yours, Bob Jensen

From: rvmijensen@To: [email protected]: RE: Purpose and Need StatementDate: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 18:16:51 -0700

Dear Carrie,

I have attached a copy of my written statement for tomorrow'smeeting. It consists of a one-page statement and a one-pageappendix.

Respectfully,Bob Jensen

From: [email protected]: rvmijensen@Subject: RE: Purpose and Need Statement Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 22:12:46 +0000
mailto:rvmijensen@mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:rvmijensen@
Shoreline Management Act Considerations Applicable to Capitol Lake DamJune 29, 2016

My name is Robert Jensen. I reside in Lacey. I served as the Assistant Attorney General for the Department of Ecology, defending the Shoreline Management Act (SMA), from 1971 to 1981. During that time, I defended this law numerous times in the state appellate courts, including the State Supreme Court. In 1992, I was appointed by Governor Booth Gardner to the State of Washington Shorelines and Pollution Control Hearings Boards. My service on those boards continued until I retired in 2004.

The SMA was passed by the people as a state-wide initiative in 1971. The Capitol Lake Dam was constructed in 1951.

In June 2015, I wrote a letter to The Olympian, which called for removal of the Capitol Lake Dam on the basis of the policies of the Shoreline Management Act. It was published on June 28. I have attached a copy of that letter as Appendix A. The letter concludes:

River estuaries are among the most productive natural habitats in the world. Restoration of the Deschutes estuary, including the confluence of Percival Creek

and the Deschutes River, is more consistent with the environmental policies of

the Shoreline Management Act than continual dredging of the Deschutes River in

order to maintain an artificial lake.

The policies of the SMA are broad. They are to be liberally construed to give full effect to the objectives and purposes for which the SMA was enacted. RCW 90.58.900.

These guiding policies are set forth in RCW 90.58.020. They begin as follows: “The

legislature finds that the shorelines of the state are among the most valuable and fragile of its

natural resources and that there is great concern throughout the state relating to their

utilization, protection, restoration, and preservation.”

These policies apply to all development on the shorelines of the state. RCW 90.58.140(1).

The SMA defines development to include:

. . . a use consisting of the construction or exterior alteration of structures; dredging; drilling; dumping; filling; removal of any sand, gravel, or minerals; bulkheading; driving of piling; placing of obstructions; or any project of permanent or temporary nature which interferes with the normal public use of the surface of the waters overlying lands subject to this chapter at any state of water level. RCW 90.58.030(3) (a).

I doubt the dam at Capitol Lake, would have been constructed had the SMA been in effect in 1951. Now the question becomes: should Capitol Lake be restored and retrofitted to meet the stringent requirements of the SMA? Given what we understand about the importance of river estuaries today, and the SMA’s policies favoring their restoration, the answer is no.

Mr. Jensen,

Here is a link to the draft purpose and need statement: http://des.wa.gov/SiteCollectionDocuments/About/CapitolLake/2016MeetingDocs/June-ID-OfHybridOptionsMeetingMaterials.pdf

It’s on the fifth page of the document titled “Identification of Hybrid Options (First Touch)”

I hope this helps. If you still can’t find it, let me know and I’ll send it as an attachment.

Carrie Martin

Carrie R. MartinAsset ManagerWashington State Department of Enterprise ServicesAsset ManagementP.O. Box 41480, Olympia, WA 98s504 (360) [email protected]

From: Robert Jensen [mailto:rvmijensen@] Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 10:20 PMTo: DES Capitol Lake Subject: Purpose and Need Statement

Dear Representative,

Thank you for sending me a copy describing the Community Input Meeting scheduled forWednesday. Where can I obtain a copy of the draft Purpose and Need Statement?

Respectfully,Bob Jensen

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

http://des.wa.gov/SiteCollectionDocuments/About/CapitolLake/2016MeetingDocs/June-ID-OfHybridOptionsMeetingMaterials.pdfhttp://des.wa.gov/SiteCollectionDocuments/About/CapitolLake/2016MeetingDocs/June-ID-OfHybridOptionsMeetingMaterials.pdfmailto:[email protected]:rvmijensen@mailto:[email protected]://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986

Shoreline Management Act Considerations Applicable to Capitol Lake Dam June 29, 2016 My name is Robert Jensen. I reside in Lacey. I served as the Assistant Attorney General for the Department of Ecology, defending the Shoreline Management Act (SMA), from 1971 to 1981. During that time, I defended this law numerous times in the state appellate courts, including the State Supreme Court. In 1992, I was appointed by Governor Booth Gardner to the State of Washington Shorelines and Pollution Control Hearings Boards. My service on those boards continued until I retired in 2004. The SMA was passed by the people as a state-wide initiative in 1971. The Capitol Lake Dam was constructed in 1951. In June 2015, I wrote a letter to The Olympian, which called for removal of the Capitol Lake Dam on the basis of the policies of the Shoreline Management Act. It was published on June 28. I have attached a copy of that letter as Appendix A. The letter concludes:

River estuaries are among the most productive natural habitats in the world. Restoration of the Deschutes estuary, including the confluence of Percival Creek and the Deschutes River, is more consistent with the environmental policies of the Shoreline Management Act than continual dredging of the Deschutes River in order to maintain an artificial lake.

The policies of the SMA are broad. They are to be liberally construed to give full effect to the objectives and purposes for which the SMA was enacted. RCW 90.58.900. These guiding policies are set forth in RCW 90.58.020. They begin as follows: “The legislature finds that the shorelines of the state are among the most valuable and fragile of its natural resources and that there is great concern throughout the state relating to their utilization, protection, restoration, and preservation.” These policies apply to all development on the shorelines of the state. RCW 90.58.140(1). The SMA defines development to include:


I doubt the dam at Capitol Lake, would have been constructed had the SMA been in effect in 1951. Now the question becomes: should Capitol Lake be restored and retrofitted to meet the stringent requirements of the SMA? Given what we understand about the importance of river estuaries today, and the SMA’s policies favoring their restoration, the answer is no.

100.00% 56

100.00% 56

100.00% 56

Q1 Please provide your contact information:Answered: 56 Skipped: 0

# Name: Date

1 Dave Peeler 7/1/2016 9:12 AM

2 Helen Wheatley 7/1/2016 9:09 AM

3 Nancy Partlow 6/30/2016 7:28 PM

4 Kelly A Mills 6/30/2016 3:57 PM



7 Jerilyn Walley 6/30/2016 10:58 AM

8 John Parry 6/30/2016 9:42 AM

9 Nicholas Wooten 6/30/2016 9:24 AM

10 Mark Welpman 6/29/2016 8:28 PM

11 judy smith 6/29/2016 2:51 PM

12 Mark Dahlen 6/29/2016 2:33 PM

13 John O'Brien 6/29/2016 9:47 AM

14 Scott Bishop 6/29/2016 9:26 AM

15 Mike Reid 6/29/2016 9:14 AM

16 Chery Sullivan 6/29/2016 5:34 AM

17 Robert L. Vadas, Jr. 6/29/2016 12:49 AM

18 Judy Bardin 6/28/2016 9:42 PM

19 Bill Robinson 6/28/2016 6:56 PM

20 S Smith 6/28/2016 1:03 PM

21 Thomas Allen 6/28/2016 12:45 PM

22 John Parry 6/28/2016 10:48 AM

23 Marie Schneider 6/28/2016 10:40 AM

24 Janell Rodriguez 6/28/2016 9:05 AM

25 Susan Kibbey 6/28/2016 8:34 AM

26 Melanie Golob 6/28/2016 8:25 AM

27 Pam Kentner 6/28/2016 8:23 AM

28 robert barnoski 6/28/2016 8:17 AM

29 Clydia J Cuykendall 6/28/2016 8:05 AM

30 Jay Tavis 6/28/2016 8:04 AM

31 John Shaughnessy 6/28/2016 6:54 AM

Answer Choices Responses

Name:

Email address:

Phone number:

1 / 12

Capitol Lake/Deschutes Estuary Public Input Form - June 16 thru June 30, 2016

32 Justin Brackett 6/28/2016 5:20 AM

33 Marcia Wolf 6/27/2016 11:18 PM

34 Paul Pickett 6/27/2016 9:29 PM

35 Peter petrukitas 6/27/2016 9:07 PM

36 Gene Coakley 6/27/2016 8:58 PM

37 Martha Hankins 6/27/2016 8:28 PM

38 Paul 6/27/2016 7:39 PM

39 Ilene Le Vee 6/27/2016 6:24 PM

40 Robert Jensen 6/27/2016 6:18 PM

41 Chris Halsell 6/27/2016 5:46 PM

42 ed zabel 6/27/2016 5:18 PM

43 Gary Cooper 6/27/2016 5:11 PM

44 Allen Miller 6/27/2016 5:02 PM

45 Gerald Pumphrey 6/27/2016 5:00 PM

46 Joel Rett 6/27/2016 4:57 PM

47 Jon Kime 6/27/2016 4:39 PM

48 Sue Patnude 6/27/2016 4:31 PM

49 Glen Hunter 6/23/2016 8:41 AM

50 Ty Karney 6/22/2016 3:39 PM

51 carole richards 6/22/2016 7:55 AM

52 Paul Allen 6/21/2016 10:56 PM

53 zena 6/16/2016 8:33 PM

54 Martin McCallum 6/16/2016 7:51 PM

55 Jon Bennett 6/16/2016 6:43 PM

56 Jenna M Schroer 6/16/2016 4:55 PM

# Email address: Date

1 davepeeler@ 7/1/2016 9:12 AM

2 hwheatley22@ 7/1/2016 9:09 AM

3 nanpartlow@ 6/30/2016 7:28 PM

4 kellannette@ 6/30/2016 3:57 PM

5 nanpartlow@ 6/30/2016 2:42 PM

6 nanpartlow@ 6/30/2016 2:00 PM

7 jeri.walley@ 6/30/2016 10:58 AM

8 parryjd46@ 6/30/2016 9:42 AM

9 nickwooten@ 6/30/2016 9:24 AM

10 welpman@ 6/29/2016 8:28 PM

11 inmygardenwithu@ 6/29/2016 2:51 PM

12 mdahlen@ 6/29/2016 2:33 PM

13 johnobrienpa@ 6/29/2016 9:47 AM

14 sbishop@ 6/29/2016 9:26 AM

15 michaelwreid@ 6/29/2016 9:14 AM

2 / 12


16 Cherysully@ 6/29/2016 5:34 AM

17 bobesan@ 6/29/2016 12:49 AM

18 judybardin@ 6/28/2016 9:42 PM

19 b6robinson@ 6/28/2016 6:56 PM

20 frausteph@ 6/28/2016 1:03 PM

21 thomasallen01@ 6/28/2016 12:45 PM

22 parryjd46@ 6/28/2016 10:48 AM

23 tucsonmarie@ 6/28/2016 10:40 AM

24 cubiclehero@ 6/28/2016 9:05 AM

25 susan.kibbey@ 6/28/2016 8:34 AM

26 melanie.golob@ 6/28/2016 8:25 AM

27 pamkentner@ 6/28/2016 8:23 AM

28 rpbarnoski@ 6/28/2016 8:17 AM

29 cjcuyken@ 6/28/2016 8:05 AM

30 jtavis@ 6/28/2016 8:04 AM

31 kevanandernie@ 6/28/2016 6:54 AM

32 j-brackett@ 6/28/2016 5:20 AM

33 marciakwolf@ 6/27/2016 11:18 PM

34 fraxinus@ 6/27/2016 9:29 PM

35 Ppetrukitas@ 6/27/2016 9:07 PM

36 tigergc@ 6/27/2016 8:58 PM

37 hankins.martha@ 6/27/2016 8:28 PM

38 Allen 6/27/2016 7:39 PM

39 leveeis@ 6/27/2016 6:24 PM

40 rvmijensen@ 6/27/2016 6:18 PM

41 chrishalsell@ 6/27/2016 5:46 PM

42 ezrr1@ 6/27/2016 5:18 PM

43 gary-cooper1@ 6/27/2016 5:11 PM

44 allen@ 6/27/2016 5:02 PM

45 gerald.pumphrey@ 6/27/2016 5:00 PM

46 jrett55@ 6/27/2016 4:57 PM

47 jekime@ 6/27/2016 4:39 PM

48 suepatnude@ 6/27/2016 4:31 PM

49 rangerbob_glen@ 6/23/2016 8:41 AM

50 tyvideo@ 6/22/2016 3:39 PM

51 rd.car.3888@ 6/22/2016 7:55 AM

52 pauljallen@ 6/21/2016 10:56 PM

53 zhartung@ 6/16/2016 8:33 PM

54 martinandval@ 6/16/2016 7:51 PM

55 bennettjon@ 6/16/2016 6:43 PM

56 earthlovinmama@ 6/16/2016 4:55 PM

3 / 12


92.59% 50

7.41% 4

Q2 Are you attending as:Answered: 54 Skipped: 2

Total 54

a privatecitizen

an affiliateof an...

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


a private citizen

an affiliate of an organization

6 / 12


Q3 What organization are you affiliatedwith?

Answered: 6 Skipped: 50

# Responses Date

1 S.E.R.T. 7/1/2016 9:13 AM

2 Olympia Yacht Club 6/29/2016 8:28 PM

3 Deschutes Estuary Restoration Team 6/27/2016 6:21 PM

4 North Capitol Campus Heritage Park Association 6/27/2016 5:02 PM

5 DERT 6/27/2016 4:31 PM

6 OYC/SSSS 6/23/2016 8:42 AM

7 / 12


55.00% 22

45.00% 18

Q4 Are you aware of additional hybridoptions that should be included for

consideration next month (in addition to thereview of the Managed Lake and Estuary)?

Answered: 40 Skipped: 16

Total 40

# Yes (please specify additional options) Date

1 Hybrid options should not be considered. Hybrid options may be politically popular, but in general appear to either 1)not be feasible or practical, or 2) do not accomplish restoration objectives (especially the so-called Percival creekplan). The Percival Creek Plan is simply an extension of the old regime of "design and destroy" rather than "designwith nature." The additional option presented verbally concerned sediments removal and nutrients harvest. Whilecharacterized by the proponent as easy and inexpensive to conduct, it would result in long term continuousmanagement forever. In other words, it's still a managed lake- not a naturally functioning ecosystem such as would beachieved by estuary restoration. This option still does not recognize the ecosystem functions; it is a continuation of theold way of doing business.

7/1/2016 9:38 AM

No

Yes (pleasespecify...

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


No

Yes (please specify additional options)

8 / 12


2 I have only recently learned that hybrid options are being submitted for the lake. I don't have any presentations ormaps, but I do have a suggestion based on long time observations. The best wildlife habitat by far at Capitol Lake is atthe Capitol Lake Interpretive Center, followed by the south basin and Percival Cove. These areas are alive with wildlifebecause the still, shallow fresh water is terrific habitat for many insect species that breed and hatch from the muddybottom of the lake. These insects draw in multifarious species of swallows, warblers, flycatchers, and other birds thatwill no longer return to these areas to mate and nest once the lake is returned to a marine environment. The fresh-water ponds at the CLIC and the backwaters of the south basin are also wonderful shelter for many species ofdabbling ducks. To convert a large freshwater wetland ecosystem into a marine environment should not beconsidered a one to one swap. They are very different habitats. There are very few publicly accessible freshwaterwetlands in Thurston County. Capitol Lake is by far the largest. In contrast, publicly accessible marine environmentsand beaches are quite common. To lose the entire Capitol Lake freshwater ecosystem would be a very great loss tolocal wildlife and to the many people who enjoy wetland wildlife observation, bird watching and nature photographythere. The fact that Capitol Lake is Thurston County's largest freshwater wetland should be cause for requiring amassive mitigation for the loss of these habitat functions. One small part of that mitigation should be protecting andeven expanding the Interpretive Center's excellent freshwater wetland habitat by keeping it separate from the marineenvironment on the other side of the dike. This could perhaps be achieved by blocking the culverts through the dikeand diverting Deschutes River water into the ponds. When U.S. Fish and Wildlife decided to breach the dikes atNisqually delta to let the sea water in, they made sure that many freshwater wetlands and ponds were retained on theRefuge so that it would retain a well-rounded wildlife profile. The same should be done at Capitol Lake. I wouldappreciate it if this hybrid proposal is considered alongside any others that have been submitted.

6/30/2016 9:26 PM

3 I have attended most of the Capitol Lake Executive Committee and Public Meetings 6/30/2016 11:03 AM

4 I believe the best possible option for the region would be filling in most of Capitol Lake near downtown (greatlyexpanding Heritage Park) in addition to filling in a large strip along Deschutes Parkway SW to create substantiallymore park space. The space created by expanding Heritage park could add a swimming/wading pool (much neededdowntown), basketball courts, tennis courts, soccer field, and (greatly needed) a large kids play area. The spacecreated by filling in land along Deschutes Parkway SW would create great space for lounging, picnics, bird watching,recreation, as well as possibly additional parking. An additional bridge could be added between the area filled in alongHeritage park and the space created by filling in space along Deschutes Parkway SW. Downtown needs largeroutdoor spaces as well as significantly better outdoor spaces. This plan would make this possible. Please consider thisoption.

6/30/2016 9:30 AM

5 Have written an environmental article on a temporal-hybrid option, i.e., Capitol Lagoon. 6/29/2016 12:50 AM

6 I am aware of two hybrid options. both with a reflecting pool lake and estuary. One with a subsurface dike to allow asome flushing and filling of the lake during low tide but not drain the lake. The other is a higher dike to separate theestuary and lake to keep the lake level more constant and refreshed with spring water no salt water.

6/28/2016 7:00 PM

7 I strongly support the hybrid option. I grew up in Olympia area and learned to swim at the old swim area. I attendedboat races on the lake including the old drag races as well as family outings in our boat. I also support an estuary atthe south end to enhance habitat for birds and fish. Would like to see a return of the salmon rearing project forblackmouth supplementation in the sound. If you keep the north end reflecting pool please commit enough resourcesto it to keep it clean and fishable/swimmable.

6/28/2016 12:49 PM

8 Consideration should be given into letting Capitol Lake turn into a swamp, which can provide many ecologicalfunctions, both for water and wildlife, assuming that the Deschutes River would have a channel through the swampand continue to empty into Budd Inlet

6/28/2016 8:06 AM

9 lake/reflecting pool for north lake, maintain existing Capitol Lake with the south lake area, south of the rail road bridgean estuary and natural filter for river sediment

6/28/2016 7:05 AM

10 If not already in place, in some capacity, I recommend a re-circulating functionality as part of fresh water adjunct to citywater for irrigation purposes at capital campus and lakeside park areas.

6/27/2016 6:30 PM

11 Freshwater reflecting pool fed by an artesian well and saltwater marsh.The continued flow will keep the reflecting poolairrated and clean.

6/27/2016 5:49 PM

12 The best hybrid option would retain the tide lock and the historic City Beautiful Movement design of Capitol Lake andenhance Percival Creek to reestablish the only wild salmon run in the Deschutes watershed.

6/27/2016 5:09 PM

13 If you are trying to come up with a solution ( a 'hybrid') that will make everyone happy I think you out of luck. 6/27/2016 4:48 PM

14 None! I am against any hybrid option due to long term maintenance/management costs for infrastructure. The Statehas already spent too many tax dollars on these on-going processes to determine management of a lake that is reallyan estuary. Remove the dam and restore the estuary.

6/27/2016 4:35 PM

15 I choose not to comment! This is not a survey, it is leading people blindly down the path you want. Make a survey thatis relevant to all parts of what is happening.

6/23/2016 8:44 AM

9 / 12


16 Yes, the re-route Percival option sounds interesting. I want to keep the lake fresh water and allow paddle boards andkayaks access. Hydroplane racing should return to Lakefair.

6/22/2016 3:47 PM

17 The estuary is the perfect solution. Let the river run free. 6/16/2016 8:34 PM

18 Remove the dam and allow the full basin to return to an estuary. 6/16/2016 7:53 PM

10 / 12


31.43% 11

51.43% 18

48.57% 17

Q5 Does the draft Purpose and Needstatement capture the primary project

goals?Answered: 35 Skipped: 21

Total Respondents: 35

# Additional Comments Date

1 Add 'restore and improve ecosystem functions' to 1st and 3rd paragraphs along with "community use". Add"Deschutes Watershed, Budd Inlet, and South Puget Sound" to "Capitol Lake Basin" (the ecosystem must beconsidered as a whole). "Sediment Management" - this is also a function of the entire watershed, not just Capitol Lake.Ecology and the tribe have identified numerous opportunities to reduce sediment load from upstream erosion. Thereare also options for managing sediments within the estuary tat would reduce potential impacts on downstream userssuch as the Port and Marinas. Finally, these downstream entities should not expect the state to fund and manage all ofthe sediment management. No estuarine users have such a sweet heart deal in other estuaries in our state - not inGrays Harbor, Suwamish/Elliot Bay, Puyallup River/Commencement Bay, or any other.

7/1/2016 9:38 AM

2 No hybrid options should be considered. The purpose of the project should be "to end violation of the clean water actby the best means possible; and to comply with shoreline management and other applicable laws and regulations.(stronger and more specific language than 'comply with...standards'.)

7/1/2016 9:12 AM

3 Do not agree with the primary project 6/30/2016 3:57 PM

4 While the Purpose and Need statement capture most of the project goals, the legislative proviso limits the study to adual basin alternative. I feel that all the current dual basin alternatives are too costly and do not go far enough toaddress the limiting factors of the Deschtues Basin and Budd Inlet water quality. I would like to suggest an alternative- remove the 500' long dam and build a set of small bridges at the southern end of Percival Landing. This would allowfor salt water/freshwater circulation at two points in Capitol Lake. The unfortunate side would be the need to relocatethe water fountain and Traditions. However, most of the businesses in that area have already moved.

6/30/2016 11:03 AM

5 I think the DELI option would be best. 6/30/2016 9:43 AM

6 Where is the Purpose and Need statement? I could not find it. There should be a hyperlink with this question. 6/28/2016 8:31 AM

7 The existing Capitol Lake reflecting pool must be maintained and improved in its existing state. A goal to improvewater quality to the point where people can use the lake again for swimming(maybe?), sailing, and rowing non-motorized small boats should be included. My dream is for citizens to be get out on Capitol Lake and see/experienceour city from that viewpoint. Think Central Park in NYC, Green Lake in Seattle etc

6/28/2016 7:05 AM

No

Yes

AdditionalComments

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


No

Yes

Additional Comments

11 / 12


8 With respect to the ecological considerations embodied in the hybrid approach, trying acomplish antithetical twoobjectives sounds like a good way to get nothing done. Let us choose one or the other, a deepened (and by that Imean dredged) Capitol Lake, or a natural Deschutes estuary. And remember, Confucius says "he who chases aftertwo rabbits catches neither".

6/28/2016 5:31 AM

9 I can't find this statement. 6/27/2016 9:35 PM

10 Unsure 6/27/2016 9:09 PM

11 Studies show the hybrid options are more costly and beneficial ecologically than dam removal and completeDeschutes Estuary restoration

6/27/2016 7:41 PM

12 The State Capitol Campus is protected under the National Historic Preservation Act as a National Historic landmarkand the Capitol Lake reflecting pool needs to be retained under section 106 of the statute.

6/27/2016 5:09 PM

13 The lake needs to be dredged, fresh or salt if it isn't deeper it will get warm and the bacteria will happily grow wild. Thelake is man made and will always need to be maintained. Wake up and build it into your budget.

6/27/2016 4:48 PM

14 Capitol Lake does not have its own watershed. If fact the "lake" is a dammed river. The Watershed is the DeschutesRiver Watershed. Implying that the lake has a long and important history completely ignores the very fact that it isactually a dammed estuary. Please - let's get this right - I was amazed when I read that statement...it is so blatantlyfalse. Please stop ignoring the inevitable. The EIS process must focus on estuary restoration.

6/27/2016 4:35 PM

15 Need to remodel the bathrooms on Columbia to look like the ones on Percival Landing. Provide larger changing roomsfor weddings and a roof overhang and small platform.

6/22/2016 3:47 PM

16 If the hybrid options increase the overall cost of Deschutes Estuary restoration and, or if the hybrid options diminishthe ecological benefit of the restoration as compared to restoring Deschutes Estuary without a hybrid option, then thehybrid options should be eliminated.

6/21/2016 11:00 PM

17 Remind all that there are no federal funds for dredging as a lake 6/16/2016 8:34 PM

12 / 12


From: Robert Jensen [mailto:rvmijensen@] Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2016 2:42 PM To: Martin, Carrie R. (DES) Subject: Deschutes Estuary/Capitol Lake Study Dear Carrie, I have attached the revised first page of my submission. The revision is at the conclusion. It does not change, but only clarifies the meaning. I apologize for this delay. Thank you kindly for your courteous consideration. Respectfully yours, Bob Jensen

mailto:rvmijensen@mailto:[email protected]

Shoreline Management Act Considerations Applicable to Capitol Lake Dam June 29, 2016 My name is Robert Jensen. I reside in Lacey. I served as the Assistant Attorney General for the Department of Ecology, defending the Shoreline Management Act (SMA), from 1971 to 1981. During that time, I defended this law numerous times in the state appellate courts, including the State Supreme Court. In 1992, I was appointed by Governor Booth Gardner to the State of Washington Shorelines and Pollution Control Hearings Boards. My service on those boards continued until I retired in 2004. The SMA was passed by the people as a state-wide initiative in 1971. The Capitol Lake Dam was constructed in 1951. In June 2015, I wrote a letter to The Olympian, which called for removal of the Capitol Lake Dam on the basis of the policies of the Shoreline Management Act. It was published on June 28. I have attached a copy of that letter as Appendix A. The letter concludes:

River estuaries are among the most productive natural habitats in the world. Restoration of the Deschutes estuary, including the confluence of Percival Creek and the Deschutes River, is more consistent with the environmental policies of the Shoreline Management Act than continual dredging of the Deschutes River in order to maintain an artificial lake.

The policies of the SMA are broad. They are to be liberally construed to give full effect to the objectives and purposes for which the SMA was enacted. RCW 90.58.900. These guiding policies are set forth in RCW 90.58.020. They begin as follows: “The legislature finds that the shorelines of the state are among the most valuable and fragile of its natural resources and that there is great concern throughout the state relating to their utilization, protection, restoration, and preservation.” These policies apply to all development on the shorelines of the state. RCW 90.58.140(1). The SMA defines development to include:


I doubt the dam at Capitol Lake, would have been constructed had the SMA been in effect in 1951. Now the question becomes: can Capitol Lake be restored and retrofitted to meet the stringent requirements of the SMA? Given what we understand about the importance of river estuaries today, and the SMA’s policies favoring their restoration, the lake and dam are artificial shorelines that cannot be restored; the estuary, however, is a natural shoreline, and must be.

Bob Jensen EmailFW_ Purpose and Need Statement6-28Bob Jensen Shoreline Considerations Applicable to Capitol Lake Dam 6-28Bob Jensen Scan_20160628201606281543CapitolLakeJune2016PublicSurveyResultsSummaryBob Jensen - Shoreline Email6-29From: Robert Jensen [mailto:rvmijensen@] Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2016 2:42 PM To: Martin, Carrie R. (DES) Subject: Deschutes Estuary/Capitol Lake Study

Shoreline Considerations Applicable to Capitol Lake Dam6-29